Article The mistake at the heart of the multiverse

[C C]

The mistake at the heart of the multiverse
https://iai.tv/articles/the-mistake-at-t..._auid=2020

INTRO: Proponents of the multiverse argue that the fact our universe is fine-tuned for life points to the existence of a multiverse. More universes, they claim, leads to a higher chance that there would be at least one universe with the right conditions for life. But Philip Goff here argues this argument is the result of faulty reasoning - the result of what is known as the inverse gambler's fallacy. This piece was written in response to this article: What's missing in the multiverse debate... (MORE - details)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

However, on the flip-side, Philip Goff is a proponent of cosmopsychism (below). IOW, many opponents of the generic concept of multiverse -- which Max Tegmark once discriminated into four levels or multiple origins and possibility types -- are driven by their own personal agendas. Spanning a spectrum from mundane creationism and intelligent design to these grand forms of panpsychism or proto-intelligence, monistic idealism, etc.

The very nature of the latter presupposition or school of thought -- that the universe is alone and special thanks to either some spiritual or secular version of Providence -- entails going against any kind of increased statistical possibility (via massive quantity) and potential precursor strata of mindless selective processes (evolution extended beyond biology) being responsible for the properties and principles that this vast world globally exhibits.

Is the Universe a conscious mind?
https://aeon.co/essays/cosmopsychism-exp...d-for-life

EXCERPT: If we combine holism with panpsychism, we get cosmopsychism: the view that the Universe is conscious, and that the consciousness of humans and animals is derived not from the consciousness of fundamental particles, but from the consciousness of the Universe itself. This is the view I ultimately defend in Consciousness and Fundamental Reality.

The cosmopsychist need not think of the conscious Universe as having human-like mental features, such as thought and rationality. Indeed, in my book I suggested that we think of the cosmic consciousness as a kind of ‘mess’ devoid of intellect or reason. However, it now seems to me that reflection on the fine-tuning might give us grounds for thinking that the mental life of the Universe is just a little closer than I had previously thought to the mental life of a human being...

[Syne]

It's just a matter of how much extraneous and unevidenced stuff you have to postulate to scaffold your theory.
One consciousness, god, monism, etc., or an infinite number of whole universes.

Parsimony.

[stryder]

I'd say that a multiverse isn't a natural occurant phenomona. If the universe was devoid of life and there was no observers, then there would only ever be one universe, only when you through life and observation into the equation do you open up possibilities beyond the natural.

It could be implied that if life and observation created the multiverse, it did so at the expense of the natural universe. Namely if many universes all divided right back from the universes creation (so as to make sure each universe has it's own individual energy) it would of likely created the first 45 seconds of the Big Bang through the Chaos that ensued. (Luckily there was no life in those 45 seconds as that would of been universes being destroyed, formed and merged instaneously)

That being said the reason to create a multiverse has many potentials. Some would want to use it for advantageous purposes like winning a lottery or having someone survive a fate that they didn't in another universe. Unfortunately that rationality really is just for Scifi.

I'm pretty sure the real reason for it's design is for stability and would of likely woven the universes together to create the one we appear in, with just the smallest of differences being possible for short durations. (The design would likely be heuristics, with the intension of solving problems before they emerge such as limitations, faults and creating stability.)

[Syne]

The problem is that the multiverse isn't postulated only to support consciousness. It's postulated to support the most fundamental behavior of quantum particles.

[stryder]

The problem is that the multiverse isn't postulated only to support consciousness. It's postulated to support the most fundamental behavior of quantum particles.

It's postulated to make sense of "Spooky actions". A particle existing between multiple universal states means that you can have a particle visit multiple universes and not collide with a doppelganger since there is only that particle in play. (In some respects it actually suggests how to create stability within a multiworld structure as well as explains why the Matter/Antimatter volumes are lopsided, as it wouldn't be particular stable if the particles kept colliding)

It also implies that parallels are indeed "holographic" in at least the sense of just being a wavefunction tied to the particles.